There never was a link between Saddam and 9/11.  However, there have been long and extensive ties between Saddam and Terrorists.  And after Al-Queda was evicted from Afganistan, Iraq welcomed a large number of them in.

And if Saddam had just listened to reason, he would more then likely still be in power.  Lybia was once the "Boogeyman Of International Terrorism", being the sponsor of the people that brought down Pan Am 103 in Scotland in the 1980's (and hundreds of other attacks).  But now they have evicted all of the terrorists from their country, and turned over large numbers to international justice.  And even in 1990, Col. Quadaffy was one of the ones that urged Saddam to leave Kuwait.

So while Saddam moulders in the ground, Lybia is conducting talks with the US to normalize relations, and even resume free trade.  Who could have imagined that 20 years ago?


US played hardball with Libya and dropped a bomb that killed some of Quadaffy's family right? 

There never was a link between Saddam and 9/11. 

then why'd the administration keep saying there was?

However, there have been long and extensive ties between Saddam and Terrorists. 

isn't this also true of saudi arabia? is "links to terrorists" the real reason we're going to war? since there are some countries with links to terrorists with whom we go to war, and others whom we consider allies, it rather seems the selection process is based on something else.

And after Al-Queda was evicted from Afganistan, Iraq welcomed a large number of them in.

a conservative friend of mine suggested that this was really why the US went to iraq. they needed to go to war with al qaeda, which is an amorphous and extra-national actor, and decided that iraq was the best staging area for this because their recent history of conflict with the US made it easiest to establish a pretext for invasion there. it's an interesting theory but strikes me as rather immoral since based it, the fact that countless thousands of innocent iraqis would get caught up in the crossfire mattered no more to the US policymakers than it did to al qaeda. but i have no idea whether the US invaded beacuse of this, really to "liberate" the iraqi people, because of oil, or some other motivation. their stated motivations having been largely discredited, we're pretty much left with a mystery.

US played hardball with Libya and dropped a bomb that killed some of Quadaffy's family right? 


Yea, that was in response to a bombing of a Berlin Nightclub in which 4 or 5 US Soldiers (and about a Dozen Germans) were killed.

However, the "family" killed was an adopted daughter.  At the time Quadaffy had something like 30-40 adupted children, none of which even lived in the same compound as he did.  The Colonel was not even living in the Palace that was bombed, and many believe that the adopted children were nothing but a smokescreen, to help make sure that the wrong palace would be bombed (and it was).

However, I do feel sorry for the girl.  Indirectly, she was another victim of terrorism.  And thankfully after that and a few other incidents, Lybia saw that supporting terrorists was a loosing proposition, and changed it's ways.  To me, it just goes to show that the US is not trying to take over countries, or to enforce regeime change.  They simply want to put a top to bad behavior.

It's kinda like raising kids.  Most kids when you spank them learn the error of their ways and become good kids.  However, there is a percentage that simply insist on being bad, and nothing will stop them.  That may seem like an oversimplification, but it is accurate.


then why'd the administration keep saying there was?


They did not.  There is a difference between a "Connection with 9/11" and a "Connection with al-Queda".  The administration did not claim the first, but did claim the second.


isn't this also true of saudi arabia? is "links to terrorists" the real reason we're going to war? since there are some countries with links to terrorists with whom we go to war, and others whom we consider allies, it rather seems the selection process is based on something else.


Some Saudi Arabian citizens may support terrorists, but the Government does not.  Remember, the vast majority of Terrorists want to bring down the Government of Saudi Arabia, and put in it's place a more fundamentalist theocracy (like that in Iran).  The Saudi Arabian Government supporting terrorism makes about as much sense as finding out that Israel supports Hamas.

Yea, that was in response to a bombing of a Berlin Nightclub in which 4 or 5 US Soldiers (and about a Dozen They did not.  There is a difference between a "Connection with 9/11" and a "Connection with al-Queda".  The administration did not claim the first, but did claim the second.of course, neither was strictly true. but they incessantly evoked 9/11 in the context of justifying the war with iraq. whether they actually said, verbatim, the words, "saddam was responsible for 9/11” is a matter of indifference to me. it’s like splitting hairs over what “is” is. they wanted us to think saddam was responsible for 9/11. their language hovered somewhere between strongly implying this in stark and frightening ways and saying it outright. polls at the time indicated something like 60 percent of americans thought hussein was responsible for 9/11 and it’s not like anyone except the administration and the right-wing echo chamber was saying this. i mean, we got this impression from somewhere, yes? and i rather think it was from this constant drumbeat of associating the two. if they never said it outright that’s not really that important, but i rather suspect if we carefully review the record we’ll probably find a place where they did. it’s much like when rumsfeld, or was it cheney, said that they never said they knew where the WMDs were. and then they found a recording of him saying, verbatim, “we know where the WMDs are.” :D

They did not.  There is a difference between a "Connection with 9/11" and a "Connection with al-Queda".  The administration did not claim the first, but did claim the second.


Correct, and thanks for clarifying it.

The moral of the story is... look for weasel words.  The administration said what it said... knowing full well that every foaming-at-the-mouth redneck would jump on "AQ!" and erroneously link it to 9/11.  And that every barking moonbat would jump on "but that's not a link to 9/11, you idiot!"... only to have every foaming-at-the-mouth redneck go even more foamy at the moonbat :)

There are people on both the left and the right who still believe that when the media says "XYZ of AQ in Iraq" means "A guy named XYZ, working for 'AQ', who happens to be located in a country called 'Iraq'", instead of "A guy named XYZ who works for an organization named 'AQ-in-Iraq'". 

Think about the guy who flips your burgers.  Does he work for McDonald's (NYSE:MCD), and is temporarily assigned to an office at Main and First Street?  Or does he work for "the manager of the McDonald's franchise #68195, you know, the one at Main and First?"

It's a legitimately ambiguous question -- and part of Karl Rove's genius was in framing an argument and knowing exactly where to the ambiguity needed to be.  Begala was pretty good at it before him, but Rove took it to new levels. 

The more polarized the voters are, the more likely the sane portion of the electorate drops out of politics altogether in sheer disgust.  Fewer voters in the electorate means you've got fewer people to convince in order to win. Doesn't matter if you're an Elephant or a Jackass.  Suppose there were only one Party -- the Republicat (or the Demopublican, if you must!) Party.  That's a win, and it explains why "opposing" wings of the Party never call each other out on those sorts of weasel-wordings. 

i like demoblican.

and props. awesome post.

Anyone know why Saddam welcomed Al-Qaida into Iraq, when supposedly they were enemies?  It could be cause they had a common enemy in the U.S.  Or were we just assuming that Saddam was welcoming them in?

Anyone know why Saddam welcomed Al-Qaida into Iraq, when supposedly they were enemies?  It could be cause they had a common enemy in the U.S.  Or were we just assuming that Saddam was welcoming them in?
i thought it was another organization that just decided to call itself "al qaeda in iraq"? and that it had some of the same people but wasn't actually related? i mean obviously there's good reason for any terrorist organization to call itself "al qaeda," and it also works for the war supporters in the US not to correct the misapprehension, but al qaeda itself is sorta amorphous, more a brand name than a real cohesive outfit. doesn't the name just mean "the base"? and ironically, a base is exactly what al qaeda doesn't have.

Interesting read here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction

They say, "Bush never said Saddam was behind 9/11."  Yeah, but after 9/11, whenever he talked about 9/11, he talked about Saddam.

Suppose every time you mentioned your car you also said the word "blue."  People would get the idea you have a blue car even though you have a red car.  You never said "my car is blue," but you directed everybody's minds to think "blue" and "car," thus conflating "blue car" when you mentioned your car, which happens to be red.  You know, it's like a psychological word association game!
:D

i remember a lot of talk about, "in this post-9/11 world," yadda yadda. clever formulation, that, places the two notions next to each other without linking them causally, and yet the attuned totally pick up on it. i remember in the buildup to the iraq war i'd listen to call-in shows on c-span and you'd hear the war supporters over and over again saying, "trust me. the bush administration knows something we don't." meaning they wouldn't be beating the drums for war, the administration, unless they secretly KNEW saddam was planning something devastating and was on the verge of implementing it, but for national security reasons the admin couldn't tell us what it was.

they carefully planned their public statements to give this impression, i'm quite convinced of that. everything they said, the subtext was, there's something REALLY BAD going on that we know about. we can't tell you what it is, but trust us... it's worse than you think...

And if Saddam had just listened to reason, he would more then likely still be in power.  Lybia was once the "Boogeyman Of International Terrorism", being the sponsor of the people that brought down Pan Am 103 in Scotland in the 1980's (and hundreds of other attacks).  But now they have evicted all of the terrorists from their country, and turned over large numbers to international justice.  And even in 1990, Col. Quadaffy was one of the ones that urged Saddam to leave Kuwait.

So while Saddam moulders in the ground, Lybia is conducting talks with the US to normalize relations, and even resume free trade.  Who could have imagined that 20 years ago?


Yup.  Problem with Saddam was that he either couldn't admit to his neighbors (Iraq and Saudi Arabia, and internally, the Kurds) that he didn't have as many toys as he wanted them to think he had.  What good's a deterrent if you have to admit to the world that you don't have one?

It's also entirely possible that Saddam really believed (look at the murals of missiles all over his palaces) that he had lots of cool toys to  lay with... because over the years, he'd probably shot anyone who suggested that his weapons programmes were never going to recover from Gulf War I, leaving only those who were  smart enough to say "Yes, Sir, we've got all sorts of stuff going on, and I'm so confident in our security programs that you can personally shoot me if Hans Blix finds any of it!" to advise him. 

And finally, suppose you're spying on Saddam in those sorts of circumstances -- if all his underlings are doing is lying to him about how well the WMD projects are going (and how much fun they're having hiding stuff from that wacky Hans Blix guy!), it's guaranteed that the only thing your spies are going to hear will be things like "Things are going well, Sir!  Project XYZ is within months of completion!" and "Blix knows nothing of project ABC!  We showed him a baby milk factory and he fell for it!", and the only conclusion you're going to be able to draw from it is that whatever XYZ or ABC refer to, it's probably safer to start the war sooner than later.

Well, the couldn't impeach Scott Ritter...so they tried to make up some story that he was soliciting a teenage girl online.  When that didn't work, the corporate media just blackballed him altogether.
::)